From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15218 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2002 01:18:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15197 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2002 01:18:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dberlin.org) (64.246.6.106) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Mar 2002 01:18:24 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by dberlin.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g2R1IMm13333; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 20:18:22 -0500 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:18:00 -0000 From: Daniel Berlin To: Andrew Cagney cc: Jim Blandy , Subject: Re: [PATCH] Let dwarf2 CFI's execute_stack_op be used outside of CFI In-Reply-To: <3CA11B6A.8050003@cygnus.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00517.txt.bz2 On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > > Errr, not really. > > What I said is correct. > > It is parameterized already with a frame and an expression. > > It's just that we want to hand it a different type of frame. > > > > You implied it wasn't parameterized with either, when it has been since > > the beginning. > > You're mistaken. On which point? Have you ever considered that you might have just been unclear? I had no problem understanding it when Jim wrote it. For example, replying to two points with "You're mistaken" is in itself unclear, as I can't tell if you mean i'm mistaken about the last one, the first one, or both. > > Andrew > >